Westy. The reason I ask is I myself am not sure where the point is that a particular segment of society's wellbeing outwieghs an individuals right
of peaceful expression, no matter how reprehensible I find it. Your analogy, to me anyway, just restated my question. It doesn't bring me any
closer to an answer than before. So I'll try to answer to my own satisfaction.
The answer, in my not so humble opinion, is not as cut and dried as I might like (what in life is?), and needs to be addressed in a case by case
basis. I suppose as well, when in doubt ere on the side of the individual.
My reasoning sounds a little shakey to me. Maybe those of a more philosophical bent can shed a little light.
I know that this thread, and a host of others, is dealing with this particular case in Austria. My concern is the underlying cause that denial of the
Holocaust represents, and the danger, clear and present, that denial represents to the Jewish community. I also know that the same can be said for
other hatespeech as well. Slippery slope and all that.
I'm thinking while typeing, not always condusive to coherent posting. Hope this makes somesort of sence.
|
Surely it would have been in the interests of everyone if Irving was ridiculed as the crackpot he is. So he doesn't accept what happened, who
cares.
In Fast Food Nation we are told how american companies provided school books containing false information, this is alot more worrying.
Its not even as if he is a holocaust denier, thats just media hype, he denies Hitlers direct involvement until someone can prove it to him (which
seems fair enough if thats where his studies have taken him). Yet ultimately, say he's right, Hitler wasn't the main guy (just a puppet like Bush),
does that change much about the holocaust and what the fight against it stood for?
|
